Contracts · Coates · 1L · Closed-Book Attack Outlines

Attack Outlines

Decision trees, checklists, cheatsheets, and case refs for every doctrinal block

Unit 1

Grounds for Enforcement

Consideration · Promissory Estoppel · Substitutes for Consideration

Is this promise enforceable?

Master tree. Run any 'is there a contract?' question through this first.

Threshold

Is there a promise?

Manifestation of intention to act/refrain (R2K § 2)

Step 1

Is there CONSIDERATION?

Bargained-for exchange of legal detriment (R2K § 71)

YES ↓

NO ↓

Likely enforceable

Move on to: formation defects, defenses, conditions, remedies

Step 2

Look for a SUBSTITUTE

Six doctrinal escape hatches:

Promissory Estoppel

R2K § 90

Detrimental reliance, foreseeable, injustice

Material Benefit

R2K § 86

Past benefit + moral obligation (minority)

Charitable Subscription

R2K § 90(2)

No reliance required (Allegheny College)

Option Contract

R2K § 87

Signed writing + recital of consideration

UCC Firm Offer

UCC § 2-205

Merchant, signed writing, ≤ 3 months

Statute / Sealed Instrument

Varies

Guaranty under R2K § 88; seal in some states

Outcome

Any substitute applies → possibly enforceable
None apply → unenforceable

Coates emphasis

Kirksey / Hamer line. Courts distinguish bargained-for exchange from conditional gifts. The condition has to be the PRICE of the promise, not just a precondition to receiving a gift.

Wood v. Lucy (Cardozo). Canonical illusory-promise rescue. Reading in implied good faith / best efforts saves an otherwise non-binding promise. UCC § 2-306 codifies for output/requirements.

Allegheny College (Cardozo). Bridges consideration and PE for charitable subscriptions. R2K § 90(2) later codifies. Charitable subscriptions and marriage settlements are binding without reliance.

Mills v. Wyman vs. Webb v. McGowin. Majority: past consideration is no consideration (Mills). Minority / R2K § 86: material benefit conferred → moral obligation → enforceable (Webb).